Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 5, 2005, 11:35 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

They missed mentioning government and military buildings :-)
But is this true even subways and trains will now be off-limits ??

Is there a big-list somewhere of what is prohibited ?
Or more likely a small-list of what is still allowed.

PICTURE for the emerging professional photographer. PP 78, March/April 05 Issue wrote:
Quote:
So, even though the New York City subway system is prepairing to prohibit photography on trains and while national monument, gas station and electrical plants have become forbidden subject matter...
Peter.
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jul 5, 2005, 11:59 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

The perception of security matters more than the reality of security (which does matter, obviously.) This has some logic (reduces worry and anxiety in the populous) but it also seems so shallow a step that I find it reduces my confidence in what they are doing.

My logic goes like this. The "good" terrorist will use a hidden/spy camera and get what pictures he wants without getting caught. It won't matter if there is a ban on taking pictures or not. Stopping anyone with a camera only makes it marginally harder for someone who really wants to take the pictures.

Therefore only stupid terrorists will just go out there and use a regular camera to take the pictures (and get caught.) The smart ones (the terrorists that I really worry about) will keep right on going.

Personally, I think they could catch the stupid terrorist in better ways than restricting my freedoms. Yes, this is a minor restriction… and I had no plan on taking pictures in the subway. But there are some street photographers who do good work in the subway, and we'll loose their work because of it.

There is probably a flaw in my logic some where... but if I were a terrorist restrictions like this one (similar to not photographing from certain bridges in/near LA) would do little to prevent me from gathering the Intel I needed to hit the target.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2005, 4:25 PM   #3
DBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,483
Default

There's nothing wrong with your thinking...:lol:

Some hot shot bueaurocrat probably came up with that idea.

But as far as I know some common sense prevailed and they dropped the idea...

For a year after 9/11 you were not allowed near the resevoirs of New York. On the face this sounds like a good idea, but New Yorks resevoirs are isolated, wild. If someone wanted to to, they could drive up with a dump truck of toxins and, with a ban on fisherman, no one would be the wiser.

After a year they got smart and allowed people back to fish. I for one feel much safer.

A free country is MUCH safer if it retains its freedoms. When every one is under suspicion, no one is under suspicion.

Dave
DBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2005, 5:18 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 436
Default

I read that it is the same in Philadelphia

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=14049685
Meryl Arbing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2005, 11:18 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

Actually DBB, there is another interesting aspect to this that came up while talking with friends after 9/11. We were talking about all the resevoirs near Boston. Many are right out in the open, near major highways. You could easily drive a large truck full of nasty stuff and make it look like an accident... just drive right into them.

Then reality struck. Someone pointed out that there is so much water in there that the amount of poison/toxins that would be required to actually make that much water poisonous would make the entire exercise ineffective. You just couldn't effectively poison it that way.

I bet the same thing is true there... the only difference is that their issolated nature might make repeated trips possible.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 6, 2005, 10:34 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 129
Default

I am too from the Philly area. I was at the beginning of the footbridge at the Ben Franklin Bridge that goes from PA to NJ. I was squatting down to take my first pic and when a Philly cop pulled up about 10 feet behind me and blared his siren, scaring the crap out of me. I walked up to the car to see what he wanted and he said I could be "locked up" for taking pictures of the bridge. The whole point of me being there was to kill some time waiting for a freind so I walked the streets under the bridge taking pics of the supports and footings. It then dawned on me that if a terrorist wanted to take down a bridge they would probably start with these supporting sections. Of course there were no police there though.
Attached Images
 
RedDragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 7, 2005, 1:22 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
marokero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 769
Default

I just don't see the point of prohibiting the public from taking pictures of public landmarks. I mean, if a terrorist wants to photograph the landmark, he WILL do so, with or without these ridiculous laws in place. The police can't refrain everyone with a camera from getting shots of the bridge... how about someone photographing the bridge from afar in the bushes or inside an apartment building, using a long tele? What then?Â*[img]/forums/images/emoticons/bash.gif[/img]
marokero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 7, 2005, 2:58 PM   #8
DBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,483
Default

It's not only that. SO if someone wants to blow up a bridge - Do they need photographs?

They need directions, and directions aren't part of a photograph.

Think about this. You want to blow up a bridge, you go there, take a look, decide where you should put a charge. You then go home and write down written instructions with a teenie weenie diagram - Why a photograph? A photograph might even confuse things!

Certainly military bases, where you have no normal access, a photograph might be helpful - but the plain fact is that we are terrorising ourselves, not them. By terrorising ourselves, we start to distrust everyone, and then what are the police to do when they get 2000 dumb reports a day about someone photographing a Bridge?

I was stopped by a helocopter and thirty of forty guys with submachine guns, becasue someone saw me with a "rocket laucnher" on the beach? Them Swarovski 'scopes sure look suspicious.

And what's "funny" about this is that the cops KNOW ME! They had to investigate because someone called it in!

dave
DBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 7, 2005, 9:18 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 129
Default

Amidst all of this discussion, they raised the terror alert on mass transit to orange today.
RedDragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 8, 2005, 12:15 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
marokero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 769
Default

"I was stopped by a helocopter and thirty of forty guys with submachine guns, becasue someone saw me with a "rocket laucnher" on the beach? Them Swarovski 'scopes sure look suspicious."Now that would have been a photo!Â*[img]/forums/images/emoticons/lachen001.gif[/img]
marokero is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:32 PM.